If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
vortex ring state at any point during an auto??
It it possible to get into vortex ring state (or settling with power)
during an autorotation? A friend at my radio control helicopter field claimed that you shouldn't do a vertical autorotation, because you might enter vortex ring state if you do. This doesn't seem right to me based on my limited knowledge of the aerodynamics of helicopters. Clearly, during an autorotation the main blades are developing lift, just like a glider's wings are generating lift when it descends at a constant velocity. And so, presumably there is a vortex at the tips of the blades. But in an auto, it seems like you would be descending out of this rotor tip vortex; the wind is driving the blades, rather than the blades driving the wind. Furthermore, the inner counter-rotating vortex that develops during vortex ring state would seem not to be possible during an auto, because there is no down-wash over the intermediate part of the blades. The air is going up through the rotor disk the whole way out from blade roots to tips. (This is all just seat-of-pants intuition; I hope someone with aerodynamic knowledge can say if my intuition is right, and what the aerodynamics of an auto are, and why in that regime settling with power can't happen.) The one place I can (just barely) imagine it might be possible is during the brief moment at the bottom of an auto when you crank up the collective to exchange rotational inertia for lift to cushion your landing. At that point it seems like you are adding energy to the rotor head other than that which is coming from the descent through the air. My supposition is that you can turn the blades using the engine, or you can turn the blades using the stored rotational inertia in the blades, and in either case you might be able to induce vortex ring state. Is this true? Thanks a million for any thoughts or comments, Greg |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"Greg Johnson" wrote in message m... It it possible to get into vortex ring state (or settling with power) during an autorotation? No. A friend at my radio control helicopter field claimed that you shouldn't do a vertical autorotation, because you might enter vortex ring state if you do. He's talking ********. To reach "that" stage, the air must be travelling DOWNWARDS through the rotors. In autorotaion, the air is travelling UPWARDS and turning the blade. (Well the AIRFLOW is upwards due to the downwards trajectory of the heli) This doesn't seem right to me based on my limited knowledge of the aerodynamics of helicopters. You're right, its not right. Clearly, during an autorotation the main blades are developing lift, just like a glider's wings are generating lift when it descends at a constant velocity. Exactamundo (almost:-) And so, presumably there is a vortex at the tips of the blades. But in an auto, it seems like you would be descending out of this rotor tip vortex; the wind is driving the blades, rather than the blades driving the wind. Correct. Furthermore, the inner counter-rotating vortex that develops during vortex ring state would seem not to be possible during an auto, because there is no down-wash over the intermediate part of the blades. Or over any part of the whole machine. The air is going up through the rotor disk the whole way out from blade roots to tips. Indeed it is, and one day I'll read the whole bleeding post before I start typing :-))) save myself a lot of work if I did:-) (This is all just seat-of-pants intuition; I hope someone with aerodynamic knowledge can say if my intuition is right, and what the aerodynamics of an auto are, and why in that regime settling with power can't happen.) The seat of your pants is working well from where it's sitting:-) The one place I can (just barely) imagine it might be possible is during the brief moment at the bottom of an auto when you crank up the collective to exchange rotational inertia for lift to cushion your landing. Not going to happen there either. You need to have POWER into the blades (and lot of it) plus a descent rate exceeding 300fpm. At that point it seems like you are adding energy to the rotor head other than that which is coming from the descent through the air. Actually, you're USING the energy already stored, so you're losing energy not adding to it. My supposition is that you can turn the blades using the engine, or you can turn the blades using the stored rotational inertia in the blades, and in either case you might be able to induce vortex ring state. Is this true? No. More than one criteria must be met to induce VRS, and one is a LOT of power going into the blades (not being used as it is when pitch is pulled, but DRIVING the blades when pitch is pulled) and the other is that rapid descent rate (300fpm typically). If both aren't present, you're not going to find yourself in the ****. -- Beav Please note my E-mail address is "beavis dot original at ntlworld dot com" (with the obvious changes) Beavisland now lives at www.beavisoriginal.co.uk |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
You still up and about Beav?
-- Alan Remove the dots to reply http://heliweb.users.btopenworld.com/ "Beav" wrote in message ... "Greg Johnson" wrote in message m... It it possible to get into vortex ring state (or settling with power) during an autorotation? No. A friend at my radio control helicopter field claimed that you shouldn't do a vertical autorotation, because you might enter vortex ring state if you do. He's talking ********. To reach "that" stage, the air must be travelling DOWNWARDS through the rotors. In autorotaion, the air is travelling UPWARDS and turning the blade. (Well the AIRFLOW is upwards due to the downwards trajectory of the heli) This doesn't seem right to me based on my limited knowledge of the aerodynamics of helicopters. You're right, its not right. Clearly, during an autorotation the main blades are developing lift, just like a glider's wings are generating lift when it descends at a constant velocity. Exactamundo (almost:-) And so, presumably there is a vortex at the tips of the blades. But in an auto, it seems like you would be descending out of this rotor tip vortex; the wind is driving the blades, rather than the blades driving the wind. Correct. Furthermore, the inner counter-rotating vortex that develops during vortex ring state would seem not to be possible during an auto, because there is no down-wash over the intermediate part of the blades. Or over any part of the whole machine. The air is going up through the rotor disk the whole way out from blade roots to tips. Indeed it is, and one day I'll read the whole bleeding post before I start typing :-))) save myself a lot of work if I did:-) (This is all just seat-of-pants intuition; I hope someone with aerodynamic knowledge can say if my intuition is right, and what the aerodynamics of an auto are, and why in that regime settling with power can't happen.) The seat of your pants is working well from where it's sitting:-) The one place I can (just barely) imagine it might be possible is during the brief moment at the bottom of an auto when you crank up the collective to exchange rotational inertia for lift to cushion your landing. Not going to happen there either. You need to have POWER into the blades (and lot of it) plus a descent rate exceeding 300fpm. At that point it seems like you are adding energy to the rotor head other than that which is coming from the descent through the air. Actually, you're USING the energy already stored, so you're losing energy not adding to it. My supposition is that you can turn the blades using the engine, or you can turn the blades using the stored rotational inertia in the blades, and in either case you might be able to induce vortex ring state. Is this true? No. More than one criteria must be met to induce VRS, and one is a LOT of power going into the blades (not being used as it is when pitch is pulled, but DRIVING the blades when pitch is pulled) and the other is that rapid descent rate (300fpm typically). If both aren't present, you're not going to find yourself in the ****. -- Beav Please note my E-mail address is "beavis dot original at ntlworld dot com" (with the obvious changes) Beavisland now lives at www.beavisoriginal.co.uk |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
I'll only comment on a few points here. The main thing is, I agree with the
answers thus far with regards to VRS in an autorotation. It isn't going to happen! "The OTHER Kevin in San Diego" skiddz *AT* adelphia *DOT* net wrote in message ... On 20 Aug 2004 17:19:48 -0700, (Greg Johnson) wrote: 3 things required for settling with power: 1) A high rate of descent. (appx 300 fpm in a "real" helo) That is to say, a "full size" helo! The RC models "are" real helo's. They have the same controls and are governed by the same aerodynamic rules as the full size birds. Their biggest advantage, beyond not having to worry about your arse if something goes wrong, is that the models generally have WAY more power to weight than the big birds do and they are much stronger, mechanically, and will take a lot more "relative" abuse than the full size birds. SWP or VRS, been there, done that, with a RC model. Try smacking the ground, level attitude, from a scale height of 20 feet in full VRS! I've gotten away with this while learning to fly my model. Guarantee you "won't" with the full size bird! ;-) Only PART of the blade is generating significant lift, and it's only enough to keep you from plummeting like a lawn dart.. The inner 25% or so is stalled. Too much AOA to be of any use. The outer 30% or so has too little AOA to be of much help. The middle 45% has an AOA that's "just right" for providing significant lift. Interesting!? The graphs I've seen that illustrate the lift patterns of the rotor disk during autorotation show the inner 33% of the blade as a stalled region. The middle 33% (roughly) is the "driving" region. That is, the part of the blade that's providing the aerodynaminc thrust that maintains the autorotative state and thus, the main rotor rpm. The outer 33% (again, roughly) is the "driven" region. That is, the part of the rotor disk that's providing the usable lift that slows the descent rate and allows attitude control, thru pitch and roll cyclic, of the helicopter. As I recall, I got this from an FAA helicopter manual for primary rotorcraft students. Has that changed or are you working off a different text. It's been a "very" long time and maybe this stuff's been updated. What text are you working from, out of curiosity? And so, presumably there is a vortex at the tips of the blades. But in an auto, it seems like you would be descending out of this rotor tip vortex; the wind is driving the blades, rather than the blades driving the wind. Helicopter rotor blades create a wing tip vortex just like fixed wing aircraft do. It trails off behind the aircraft just like the fixed wing airplane. The heavier the helicopter, the more pronounced the vortex, again, just like the fixed wing folks. It makes no difference if the helicopter is in powered or autorotative flight. As long as the main rotor blades are generating lift, the vortices will be there. For the purposes of the subject line question, as others have stated, the upward airflow thru the main rotor disk, as the helicopter descends in an autorotation, keeps the VRS for establishing itself. FWIW! Fly Safe, Steve R. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"Alan" wrote in message ... You still up and about Beav? I was, and then I went to bed, but I got up again this morning and went out. I got back though and here I am, sitting here with a cuppa in my hand thinking about getting out of this chair and transfering to another where can have a drag. Good thnking that.... Gone-) -- Beav Please note my E-mail address is "beavis dot original at ntlworld dot com" (with the obvious changes) Beavisland now lives at www.beavisoriginal.co.uk |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Hi Kevin,
Glad to know it's not just "me!" ;-) Actually, from what I've read through the years, even the guys out there with full blown PhD's in rotorcraft aerodynamics don't fully understand this stuff so us little peons shouldn't be too embarrassed by the confusion we feel when trying to get a handle on it. Fly Safe & Keep the training reports coming! :-) Steve R. "The OTHER Kevin in San Diego" skiddz *AT* adelphia *DOT* net wrote in message ... This very thing is really irritating to me as I study. Different books state different things and my GS instructor says yet another thing. The books I primarily refer to are Principles of Helicopter Flight and Rotorcraft Flying Handbook. Another source is a web site who's URL escapes me at the moment. Something like dynamicaviation.com.. (really good diagrams of things like transverse flow, disymmetry of lift etc..) The one thing I've discovered as I study it that no two books agree on any point. It's kinda like extrapolating max manifold pressures for given temps and DAs off the placard in the helicopter. That's why when I answer quiz/test questions, I preface a lot of "specific" numbers with the word "approximately" |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Steve R. wrote:
Actually, from what I've read through the years, even the guys out there with full blown PhD's in rotorcraft aerodynamics don't fully understand this stuff so us little peons shouldn't be too embarrassed by the confusion we feel when trying to get a handle on it. That much is true. Anyway, you're not going to enter VRS in an auto. No power, no VRS. And the problem with a vertical autorotation from altitude to the ground isn't maintaining rotor inertia - you'll have plenty of that. -Ryan ATP, CFI (airplanes and helicopters) |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"Steve R." wrote in message ... Hi Kevin, Glad to know it's not just "me!" ;-) Actually, from what I've read through the years, even the guys out there with full blown PhD's in rotorcraft aerodynamics don't fully understand this stuff so us little peons shouldn't be too embarrassed by the confusion we feel when trying to get a handle on it. So HOW do these things get off the ground? Are they sucked off (PuLEASE!! or are they blown off? -- Beav Please note my E-mail address is "beavis dot original at ntlworld dot com" (with the obvious changes) Beavisland now lives at www.beavisoriginal.co.uk |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
"Beav" wrote in
: "Steve R." wrote in message ... Hi Kevin, Glad to know it's not just "me!" ;-) Actually, from what I've read through the years, even the guys out there with full blown PhD's in rotorcraft aerodynamics don't fully understand this stuff so us little peons shouldn't be too embarrassed by the confusion we feel when trying to get a handle on it. So HOW do these things get off the ground? Are they sucked off (PuLEASE!! or are they blown off? Flight (and many other things in our Universe) make use of measurable and repeatable forces and effects. However, because we can measure a force, it doesn't necessarily mean we know why the force is present or the effect occurs. For example, you can measure how long you're on the Internet with a watch, but I doubt you know exactly how the internet is operating while you're online. Jsut because you don't know, doesn't mean you can't get a computer and get online though. Back to flight - gravity is of course a major force, but the collected scientific knowledge of our species still cannot say exactly what gravity *is* - we know there is a force, we can measure it and predict its effects and make use of it, but we still don't know what it is that causes the force we know as gravity. Same is true for many physical properties of the universe, that's what people like Stephen Hawking are trying to find out - they're looking for a unified theory that will explain what we can measure physically (gravity, lift, drag etc) and what we have observed about atomic structure and behaviour (unfortunately Newtonian physics that we use to achieve flight, don't work at the atomic level). That work continues... So the ability for aircraft to fly simply proves that we can measure and make use of forces - not that we understand why those forces exist or even how they work under all circumstances. For all we know, aircraft may well be sucked and blown off to achieve flight, personally I'd rather know the best way for a pilot to achieve those things toady. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
"Toad-Man" wrote in message ... "Beav" wrote in : "Steve R." wrote in message ... Hi Kevin, Glad to know it's not just "me!" ;-) Actually, from what I've read through the years, even the guys out there with full blown PhD's in rotorcraft aerodynamics don't fully understand this stuff so us little peons shouldn't be too embarrassed by the confusion we feel when trying to get a handle on it. So HOW do these things get off the ground? Are they sucked off (PuLEASE!! or are they blown off? Flight (and many other things in our Universe) make use of measurable and repeatable forces and effects. However, because we can measure a force, it doesn't necessarily mean we know why the force is present or the effect occurs. For example, you can measure how long you're on the Internet with a watch, but I doubt you know exactly how the internet is operating while you're online. Jsut because you don't know, doesn't mean you can't get a computer and get online though. Back to flight - gravity is of course a major force, but the collected scientific knowledge of our species still cannot say exactly what gravity *is* - we know there is a force, we can measure it and predict its effects and make use of it, but we still don't know what it is that causes the force we know as gravity. Same is true for many physical properties of the universe, that's what people like Stephen Hawking are trying to find out - they're looking for a unified theory that will explain what we can measure physically (gravity, lift, drag etc) and what we have observed about atomic structure and behaviour (unfortunately Newtonian physics that we use to achieve flight, don't work at the atomic level). That work continues... So the ability for aircraft to fly simply proves that we can measure and make use of forces - not that we understand why those forces exist or even how they work under all circumstances. For all we know, aircraft may well be sucked and blown off to achieve flight, personally I'd rather know the best way for a pilot to achieve those things Well that's easy, just lie down (and think of England:-) -- Beav Please note my E-mail address is "beavis dot original at ntlworld dot com" (with the obvious changes) Beavisland now lives at www.beavisoriginal.co.uk |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
General Zinni on Sixty Minutes | WalterM140 | Military Aviation | 428 | July 1st 04 11:16 PM |
Did the Germans have the Norden bombsight? | Cub Driver | Military Aviation | 106 | May 12th 04 07:18 AM |
Enola Gay: Burnt flesh and other magnificent technological achievements | me | Military Aviation | 146 | January 15th 04 10:13 PM |
Osprey tested in air, at sea, but not in vortex ring state. | Henry J. Cobb | Military Aviation | 17 | December 13th 03 08:50 PM |
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools | RT | Military Aviation | 104 | September 25th 03 03:17 PM |